INSTITUTE OF CLINICAL RESEARCH INDIA SOCIETY,DEHRADUN vs. CIT(A), DEHRADUN

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Institute Of Clinical Research Vs. Commissioner Of Income India Society, Tax (Appeals), 1St Floor, Building No.1, Dehradun Treenetra Vihar, Near Kargt Chowk, Dehradun Pan :Aabai3710P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr

house property iii. Profits and gains from business or profession iv. Capital gains v. Income from other sources. 7.1. Now, let us examine Section 11 and Section 40 to decide this controversy. Section 11 to 13 is a part of Chapter 3 under the heading "Income which does not form the part of the total income". Section 11 (1) provides

MUSSOORIE DEHRADUN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MDDA, TRANSPORT NAGAR DEHRADUN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT DEHRADUN

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are dismissed as above

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

housing scheme, constructing roads, drains, beautification, etc., filed its Income Tax Returns (hereinafter, the ‘ITR’) of AY 2017-18 and 2018-19 on 31.10.2017 and 30.10.2018 declaring income of Rs.97,26,470/- and NIL respectively. These cases were picked up for scrutiny. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing officer (hereinafter, the ‘AO’) noticed that the assessee was authorized

MUSSOORIE DEHRADUN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MDDA, TRANSPORT NAGAR DEHRADUN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are dismissed as above

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

housing scheme, constructing roads, drains, beautification, etc., filed its Income Tax Returns (hereinafter, the ‘ITR’) of AY 2017-18 and 2018-19 on 31.10.2017 and 30.10.2018 declaring income of Rs.97,26,470/- and NIL respectively. These cases were picked up for scrutiny. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing officer (hereinafter, the ‘AO’) noticed that the assessee was authorized

MRS. DHOOMI DEVI,CHAMOLI vs. ITO, W-1(4)4, SRINAGAR, CHAMOLI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year : 2022-23] Mrs. Dhoomi Devi Vs Ito C/O-Hotel Udai Palace Near . Ward-1(4)4 Narsingh Temple Srignagar, Chamoli Joshimath Chamoli, Uttarakhand-246174 Uttarakhand-246443 Pan-Adkpd6984B Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Revenue By Shri A.S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.08.2024 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Nfac/2021-22/10329482 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 05.03.2024 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is An Individual & The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass For Reason I.E. “Large Investment In Immovable Property As Compared To The Total Income”. The Ao Than Passed The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B On 05.03.2024 At A Total Income Of Inr 2,70,31,224/- As Against The Total Income Declared At Inr 29,45,000/- In The Return Of Income Filed By The Assessee.

section 54F(1) are satisfied in the present case and therefore the appellant is eligible to claim deduction u/s 54F of Rs. 1,90,86,224/- 4.1 That on facts and in law the AO/CIT(A) have erred in not appreciating that following properties inherited by the appellant are not a "residential house as they are commercial properties

OMWATI,DEHRADUN vs. PR.CIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshsmt. Omwati Pr. Cit W/O Sh. Dariyav Singh Dehradun 171/1, Vasant Vihar, Vs. Dehradun Pan-Aanpw 6438K (Appellant) (Respondent)

house property and income from business. The return of income for A.Y.2010-11 was filed on 30/09/2010 declaring total income of Rs.20,50,270/- showing capital gains at Nil. The assessee sold an agricultural land along with her husband Sh. Dariyav Singh and Sh. Sanjay Kumar during the year under consideration. The assessee had capital gains of Rs.35

LAT SMT. SAROJ BANSAL,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

section 54F of the Act in respect of reinvestment made in new house property. This action of learned Assessing Officer was upheld by learned CIT(A). 3 AY: 2013-14 5. It would be relevant to understand the behavior of the assessee with regard to the purchase and sale of the properties, which could be understood from the following table

MAYANK SINGH MEHRA,NAINITAL vs. ITO, NAINITAL

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M Balaganesh[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Mayank Singh Mehra V Ito Oak Over Cottage, Mallital, S Nainital Nainital, Uttarakhand Uttarakhand Pan: Abipm5085E Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. Sharad Kumar Vishnoi, Adv Respondent By Sh. A. S. Rana, Sr. Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.11.2023 Date Of 23.11.2023 Pronouncement

section 27(1) Income Tax Act. 1961 categorically states that penalty would be livable if the assessee conceals particulars of his Income or furnishes Inaccurate particulars thereof. But by reason of such concealment of furnishing of inaccurate alone, the assessee does not ipso facto becomes liable for penalty. Imposition of penalty is not automatic. Not only is the levy

SH. DEVENDRA DUTT PANT,HARIDWAR vs. DCIT , UTTARKAHAND

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal

5) Whether, the permission under section 65 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code was obtained for the non-agricultural use of the land? If so, when and by whom (the vendor or the vendee)? Whether such permission was in respect of the whole or a portion of the land? If the permission was in respect of a portion

DARIYAV SINGH,DEHRADUN vs. PR. CIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshsh. Sanjay Kumar Pr. Cit 170, Vasant Vihar-1 Dehradun Dehradun Vs. Pan-Akkpk 1007F (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Dariyav Singh Pr. Cit 28-Chakrata Road, Dehradun Dehradun Vs. Pan-Awkps 6026L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Mr. Sherey Jain, Advocates Respondent By Mr. N.S.Jangpangi, Cit-Dr

house property. The return of income for A.Y.2010-11 was filed on 30/09/2010 declaring total income of Rs.11,80,610/- showing capital gains at Nil. The assessee sold an agricultural land along with Sh. Dariyav Singh and Sh. Omwati during the year under consideration. The assessee had capital gains of Rs.35,08,250/- and from the sale proceeds of the said

SANJAY KUMAR,DEHRADUN vs. PRCIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshsh. Sanjay Kumar Pr. Cit 170, Vasant Vihar-1 Dehradun Dehradun Vs. Pan-Akkpk 1007F (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Dariyav Singh Pr. Cit 28-Chakrata Road, Dehradun Dehradun Vs. Pan-Awkps 6026L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Mr. Sherey Jain, Advocates Respondent By Mr. N.S.Jangpangi, Cit-Dr

house property. The return of income for A.Y.2010-11 was filed on 30/09/2010 declaring total income of Rs.11,80,610/- showing capital gains at Nil. The assessee sold an agricultural land along with Sh. Dariyav Singh and Sh. Omwati during the year under consideration. The assessee had capital gains of Rs.35,08,250/- and from the sale proceeds of the said

MUSSORIE DEHRADUN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,DEHRADUN vs. DY.CIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as above

Bench: the date of agreement. In his reply AR of the assessee submitted that only Rs.14,00,415/- was received during the year and the assessee has inadvertently forgot to include this amount in its income. So, this may be considered as income from transfer of the above property. He furnished receipt of the above amount which is place on record. MDDA

1) cannot be made available to the appellant.” 4. Before us, Ld. AR submitted that the appellantassessee had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 12th July, 1991 in respect of Rehabilitation of urban residents affected from the Tehri Dam Project. In the said MOU a piece of land admeasuring 20,841 Sq. Meters of was given

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN, RAJPUR ROAD, DEHRADUN vs. SANDEEP SANGHAL, KANWLI ROAD, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2020-21] Dcit Vs Sandeep Sanghal Central Circle, 7, Ram Bagh, Near Anurag Dehradun Nursery, Kanwali Road, Uttarakhand Dehradun, Uttarakhand Pan-Aueps1161Q Appellant Respondent C.O.Nos.1 & 3/Ddn/2026 [In Ita No. 277/Ddn/2025] [Assessment Year : 2020-21] Sandeep Sanghal Vs Dcit 7, Ram Bagh, Near Anurag Central Circle, Nursery, Kanwali Road, Dehradun Dehradun, Uttarakhand Uttarakhand Pan-Aueps1161Q Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2020-21] Dcit Vs Koma Singhal Central Circle, Village-Biasnehri, Haripur, Dehradun Kalsi Gate, Dehradun, Uttarakhand Uttarakhand-248001 Pan-Bnips9413F Appellant Respondent

5. Brief facts of the case are that a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was carried out on 17.12.2021 and subsequently, case of the assessee was re-opened by issue of notice u/s 148 on 25.01.2023. The return of income was filed in response to notice u/s 148 on 27.11.2023, declaring total income

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN vs. KOMA SINGHAL, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2020-21] Dcit Vs Sandeep Sanghal Central Circle, 7, Ram Bagh, Near Anurag Dehradun Nursery, Kanwali Road, Uttarakhand Dehradun, Uttarakhand Pan-Aueps1161Q Appellant Respondent C.O.Nos.1 & 3/Ddn/2026 [In Ita No. 277/Ddn/2025] [Assessment Year : 2020-21] Sandeep Sanghal Vs Dcit 7, Ram Bagh, Near Anurag Central Circle, Nursery, Kanwali Road, Dehradun Dehradun, Uttarakhand Uttarakhand Pan-Aueps1161Q Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2020-21] Dcit Vs Koma Singhal Central Circle, Village-Biasnehri, Haripur, Dehradun Kalsi Gate, Dehradun, Uttarakhand Uttarakhand-248001 Pan-Bnips9413F Appellant Respondent

5. Brief facts of the case are that a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was carried out on 17.12.2021 and subsequently, case of the assessee was re-opened by issue of notice u/s 148 on 25.01.2023. The return of income was filed in response to notice u/s 148 on 27.11.2023, declaring total income

SUSHILA BISHT,DEHRADUN vs. ADD. CIT RANGE-02, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Sushila Bisht, Vs. Addl Cit, Ajabpur Kalan, C-100, Shanti Range-02, Vihar, Phase-1, Dehradun Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ajepb0822E

house property for Rs. 75 lakhs. b) The Assessee borrowed unsecured loan from Shri Bikram Singh Bisht (husband) to the tune of Rs. 18,46,320/- which included a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- received in cash. c) The entire borrowings made by the Assessee from her husband Shri Bikram Singh Bisht is reflected in the balance sheet

CHANDRA KANT GUPTA,HALDWANI vs. CIT(A), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Us, The Only Effective Issue To Be Decided In This Appeal Is As Ay: 2017-18 To Whether The Learned Commissioner Of India Tax (Appeals)(Nfac)

1), Haldwani, Ratanalaya,MohallaTalla, Vs Uttarakhand Gorakhpur, Opposite Canal Colony, Kaladhungi, Road S.O., Uttarakhand PAN – BNCPG0604G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Prashant Kaccar, Advocate Respondent by Sh. A.S. Rana, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 20.06.2023 Date of Pronouncement 23.06.2023 ORDER This is an appeal against order dated 11.03.2022 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) pertaining to assessment year

SHRI ABHISHEK JOSHI,DEHRADUN vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshshri Abhishek Joshi, Vs. The Pr. Cit, C/O. Parimal Patet, Gk Patet & Dehradun Co, 14 Abhishek Tower, Subhash Road, Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ajopj4300M Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Shri Somil Aggarwal, Adv Revenue By: Shri N. S. Jangpangi, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 26/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15/09/2023

1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. PCIT has erred in law and on facts, in holding that the assessment order for A.Y. 2015-16 dated 30.10.2018 passed u/s 147/143(3) is erroneous and also prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned PCIT